Originally Posted By: bigt
Originally Posted By: 49er
And I don't want dog hunting banned because some neighbor thinks it interferes with his qdm program. My opposition is directed at both the DCNR and any individuals who support such actions.


It is more likely he is tired of not being able to hunt the way he wants to on his property because some yahoo has his dogs running all over his and other peoples property. If people keep thier dogs on thier property there would not be a problem and this includes the famliy pets that are allowed to run loose.


Our game and fish laws were not written to deal with problems arising from domestic animals running at large onto property where you hunt. You don't call the game warden when your neighbors pets come onto your property and scatter your garbage around. We have general laws to protect property and to deal with domestic animals running at large.

Here's a link to a court opinion for you to read where dogs were running at large and intruded onto the Auburn Deer Research Project's property. Note the lack of involvement of our game and fish laws in the case. Note also the discussion of a provision of our Constitution that forbids special, local and private laws such as the dog huntin permits and banning dog hunting in parts of counties where people have complained about hunting dogs running at large onto their property.

Quote:
... Based on the foregoing, the trial court's ruling is reversed. Because Golden admitted, during his testimony, to facts that constitute the essential elements (that two of his dogs were in the deer pens of the Deer Research Project of Auburn University on property belonging to Auburn University) and because the evidence is uncontroverted, we remand for entry of a judgment of guilt and proper sentencing.

State v. Golden, 531 So. 2d 941 - Ala: Court of Criminal Appeals 1988


And here is another case where the general laws of our state were applied to a controversy involving a dog running at large as our Constitution requires:

Quote:
There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Harris owned the dog and as to whether Harris had charge of the dog. Thus, a jury could infer that Harris owed Stephens a duty under § 3-1-5. Therefore, the question whether Harris violated that duty and was negligent per se is a question of fact appropriate for a jury.

Stephens also alleged that Harris was wanton by not keeping the dog on his premises. " `To establish wantonness, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant, with reckless indifference to the consequences, consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some known duty.'" Proctor, 20 So.3d at 1287 (quoting Martin v. Arnold, 643 So.2d 564, 567 (Ala. 1994)). Harris argued in his motion for a summary judgment only that he owed no duty to Stephens. Because we have concluded that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Harris owned or was in charge of the dog, and thus whether Harris owed a duty to Stephens, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Harris on Stephens's wantonness claim as well.

Stephens v. Harris, 51 So. 3d 1071 - Ala: Court of Civil Appeals 2010

Our game and fish laws do not delegate authority to the DCNR to deal with domestic animals running at large. The dog hunting bans and special, local and private rules being enforced with the force of law are blatanly in violation of our Constitution and are an abuse of the commissioner's delegated authority. The legislature cannot pass such laws itself, and it cannot delegate authority to the DCNR to do it when it lacks such authority itself.

Constitutiton of Alabama 1901
Quote:
Section 104 Special, private or local laws — Prohibited in certain cases.

Section 105 Same Prohibited in cases provided for by general law; exception as to time of holding courts; partial repeal of general laws.

Section 106 Same Publication or posting of notice of intent to apply therefor within county or counties affected prior to introduction of bill.

Section 107 Same Notice required by section 106 prerequisite to repeal or amendment.

Section 108 Suspension of general laws for benefit of individuals or private corporations; exemption of individuals or private corporations from operation of general laws.

Section 109 General laws for protection of local and private interests.

Section 110 "General law," "local law" and "special or private law" defined.

Section 111 Amendment of bill introduced as general law so as to become special, private or local law on passage



The DCNR knows better. The leaders just seem not to care:

Quote:
We, therefore, hold that the regulation in question, having the force and effect of law, does violate Section 104(14) of the Constitution, in that its promulgation effects the passage of a local law fixing the punishment of crime in Elmore County, i. e., using nets for commercial fishing. Since the legislature itself could not effect passage of an act embodying the terms of this regulation, it would seem obvious that the administrative agency, being a creature of and deriving its powers from the legislature, would possess no such power.

Williams v. Kelley, 268 So. 2d 485 - Ala: Supreme Court 1972

Quote:
... The only question permissible under the statute on this type of appeal is the constitutionality of the subject Act. State v. Cecil, 216 Ala. 391, 113 So. 254. We are of the opinion that it is unconstitutional, being in violation of § 104(14) of the Constitution of Alabama 1901.

State v. Rogers, 198 So. 2d 610 - Ala: Supreme Court 1967